Ever wondered what a crew cabin looks like?

Why would anyone report that? Does it happen? While policy may say that the impaired crew member, whose job won't start in 5 hours, long enough to be able to clean cabins, should be fired, I'd fire the snitch and try to find a way to keep the best crew who, in order to keep sane, needs to go wild a few times during their 6 or 9 month contract.

Does it happen, yes. Typically, a report like that is triggered by other behavior that the partyers have shown while intoxicated. Noisy (complaints from pax or other crew trying to sleep), unwanted advances towards other crew, destruction of property, or failure to turn to for work on time. Mostly its a supervisor who is required to report this behavior, under the ISM code, or face disciplinary action themselves. Crew know in advance, when they first decide to apply for a cruise ship job, that there is limited drinking and no drugs, that is across the board in the maritime industry. If they decide they can't abide by those rules, does that make them "the best crew", regardless of the performance of their duties? What if that crew member was a fire team leader, and there was a fire the night that he/she decided to go on a bender? Sure, as on-scene commander, when the fire team reports to me for instruction, I could probably determine that person not fit to perform their duty, and take them out of it, but that then puts the rest of his/her team in jeopardy being a person down. Sorry, life at sea is not life on shore, and if you cannot accommodate yourself to that, then in my opinion you shouldn't be on a ship.

Now, do crew go ashore in port, have a few, and come back aboard well above the limit, but well behaved and showing no outward signs of intoxication? Sure, and in those cases 95% of the time, nothing will be done.

One other area of note, is the Surveillance department onboard the ships. These are the guys/gals that actually sit in front of the monitors as they rotate through all the cameras onboard the ship, and take care of the recording equipment. This department is outside of the Captain's chain of command, reporting directly to corporate (to remove any possibility of preferential influence on their actions from senior management onboard), and have the ability to dispense disciplinary action to crew outside of the crew's normal chain of supervisors. If these folks see intoxicated behavior, they will report it.

Does it happen, yes. Typically, a report like that is triggered by other behavior that the partyers have shown while intoxicated. Noisy (complaints from pax or other crew trying to sleep), unwanted advances towards other crew, destruction of property, or failure to turn to for work on time.

OK, that's totally reasonable. Also without alcohol involved.

Crew know in advance, when they first decide to apply for a cruise ship job, that there is limited drinking and no drugs, that is across the board in the maritime industry. If they decide they can't abide by those rules, does that make them "the best crew", regardless of the performance of their duties? What if that crew member was a fire team leader, and there was a fire the night that he/she decided to go on a bender?

They know what they sign for, true. But IMHO the ship shouldn't make the job even harder than it needs to be. For instance, it's not exactly dangerous when some crew, a few times during their contract, drink more than 3 beers. When the fire team leader is ashore, there must be someone else available to replace him anyway. As there is a reasonable chance that the fire team leader, despite all warnings and threats to fire him, does not return to the ship almost completely sober, the ship shouldn't schedule him the night after a shore visit.

Now, do crew go ashore in port, have a few, and come back aboard well above the limit, but well behaved and showing no outward signs of intoxication? Sure, and in those cases 95% of the time, nothing will be done.

I'm glad to hear that. :)

One other area of note, is the Surveillance department onboard the ships. These are the guys/gals that actually sit in front of the monitors as they rotate through all the cameras onboard the ship, and take care of the recording equipment. This department is outside of the Captain's chain of command, reporting directly to corporate (to remove any possibility of preferential influence on their actions from senior management onboard), and have the ability to dispense disciplinary action to crew outside of the crew's normal chain of supervisors. If these folks see intoxicated behavior, they will report it.

I thought Security would both be monitoring and taking action, similar to police on land, but apparently there's a complete different department for that. How can it be outside the Captain's chain of command? Doesn't that come into conflict with other rules that I'd think exist, like the Master being, well, the Master. The one who decides everything, but who is responsible for everything as well. What if members of Surveillance themselves are not acting like angels, would the Captain need to ask HQ permission to take action?

 

They know what they sign for, true. But IMHO the ship shouldn't make the job even harder than it needs to be. For instance, it's not exactly dangerous when some crew, a few times during their contract, drink more than 3 beers. When the fire team leader is ashore, there must be someone else available to replace him anyway. As there is a reasonable chance that the fire team leader, despite all warnings and threats to fire him, does not return to the ship almost completely sober, the ship shouldn't schedule him the night after a shore visit.

 

There are several fire teams onboard (typically 4-6). Two of them are restricted to ship at any time, so they don't have the ability to go ashore and get blotto. And it's a fixed schedule, so there's no "not scheduling him the night after", and since virtually everyone onboard has an assigned emergency duty, who is going to "replace" a fire team member that has placed him/herself voluntarily out of action? If they are sick, that's one thing, but getting drunk is a voluntary decision.

This is not something that is unique to cruise ships. Shipping is one of the most regulated industries in the world as far as drug and alcohol tolerance is concerned. It's something you either live with, or you don't sail.

 

I thought Security would both be monitoring and taking action, similar to police on land, but apparently there's a complete different department for that. How can it be outside the Captain's chain of command? Doesn't that come into conflict with other rules that I'd think exist, like the Master being, well, the Master. The one who decides everything, but who is responsible for everything as well. What if members of Surveillance themselves are not acting like angels, would the Captain need to ask HQ permission to take action?

Surveillance is under the Captain's chain of command for shipboard safety and behavior (so, yes, the Captain can discipline someone in Surveillance). But their reporting, and their performance evaluation is outside the Captain's purview, acting as essentially third party auditors, taking action when the ship's management doesn't. The Master is not the "almighty God on earth" that they were in the days when ships operated for months or years without communication with the owner or the country they belonged to. The Master does have "overriding authority" (meaning that no one in the company can override or question his decisions) when it comes to the safety of the ship, cargo, crew, and passengers (cargo), or when it comes to the environment. This is spelled out in the company's ISM manual, which also is required to spell out nearly all details of how the company does business, and how the ship operates. This ISM code allows the presence of the Surveillance department to have reporting outside the Captain's purview. If Surveillance does something the Captain doesn't agree with (disciplining a crew member for something, let's say), he can communicate with corporate and outline his views for possible review of the incident, but he cannot blanket override what Surveillance has done. The military has these situations all the time, where Inspector General departments report right to the top, no matter what base they are stationed on, and don't come under the base commander, except that they have to follow the base rules.

And it's a fixed schedule, so there's no "not scheduling him the night after", and since virtually everyone onboard has an assigned emergency duty, who is going to "replace" a fire team member that has placed him/herself voluntarily out of action? If they are sick, that's one thing, but getting drunk is a voluntary decision.

I see it this way. There's a chance that crewmembers get noro, break an arm, hear about their mother being very sick, whatever, and then the ship needs to find a replacement in case a fire does break out. From what you are saying, I gather that people do drink a few beers to many, without repercussions. Sometimes they drink some more, and they do get fired. But, when a fire breaks out, it doesn't matter if the firefighter is very sick or very drunk. Another person needs to do the job. When you know the firefighter is going ashore on an island that really has nothing to offer but margaritas, and the schedule is fixed, no matter the repercussions and procedures that should work, you know beforehand that a percentage of them will be "sick". If you cannot change the schedule of who are the firefighters, you can say that crewmember X cannot visit the island because he's on duty the next night.

Surveillance is under the Captain's chain of command for shipboard safety and behavior (so, yes, the Captain can discipline someone in Surveillance). But their reporting, and their performance evaluation is outside the Captain's purview, acting as essentially third party auditors, taking action when the ship's management doesn't. The Master is not the "almighty God on earth" that they were in the days when ships operated for months or years without communication with the owner or the country they belonged to. The Master does have "overriding authority" (meaning that no one in the company can override or question his decisions) when it comes to the safety of the ship, cargo, crew, and passengers (cargo), or when it comes to the environment. This is spelled out in the company's ISM manual, which also is required to spell out nearly all details of how the company does business, and how the ship operates. This ISM code allows the presence of the Surveillance department to have reporting outside the Captain's purview. If Surveillance does something the Captain doesn't agree with (disciplining a crew member for something, let's say), he can communicate with corporate and outline his views for possible review of the incident, but he cannot blanket override what Surveillance has done. The military has these situations all the time, where Inspector General departments report right to the top, no matter what base they are stationed on, and don't come under the base commander, except that they have to follow the base rules.

I did think the Captain was the almighty God on a ship until 1) he abandons the ship himself (like Concordia) or 2) the doctor says he's insane, where the second in command would instantly be the new almighty Master. Where of course, there is a huge incentive to listen cafefully to HQ as this voyage could be your last contract when you don't.

(funny that you often refer to pax as "cargo" Maritime law does make a distinction, like oil doesn't need a doctor ):D

I was wondering if the system of a DPA would be more powerful when he was on the ship under similar rules as Surveillance. The barrier to contact him would be much lower as he'd have an office for a confidential meeting, and could be seen in the crew bar daily. A bit of an embassy on board the ship where crew can complain, or blow the whistle.

I see it this way. There's a chance that crewmembers get noro, break an arm, hear about their mother being very sick, whatever, and then the ship needs to find a replacement in case a fire does break out. From what you are saying, I gather that people do drink a few beers to many, without repercussions. Sometimes they drink some more, and they do get fired. But, when a fire breaks out, it doesn't matter if the firefighter is very sick or very drunk. Another person needs to do the job. When you know the firefighter is going ashore on an island that really has nothing to offer but margaritas, and the schedule is fixed, no matter the repercussions and procedures that should work, you know beforehand that a percentage of them will be "sick". If you cannot change the schedule of who are the firefighters, you can say that crewmember X cannot visit the island because he's on duty the next night.

 

 

 

I did think the Captain was the almighty God on a ship until 1) he abandons the ship himself (like Concordia) or 2) the doctor says he's insane, where the second in command would instantly be the new almighty Master. Where of course, there is a huge incentive to listen cafefully to HQ as this voyage could be your last contract when you don't.

 

(funny that you often refer to pax as "cargo" Maritime law does make a distinction, like oil doesn't need a doctor ):D

 

I was wondering if the system of a DPA would be more powerful when he was on the ship under similar rules as Surveillance. The barrier to contact him would be much lower as he'd have an office for a confidential meeting, and could be seen in the crew bar daily. A bit of an embassy on board the ship where crew can complain, or blow the whistle.

The environment at sea is not quite as forgiving as on shore, where you can reach out and get additional resources in an emergency. On a ship, that is your whole universe, you're on your own. Unless you are physically unable to perform your emergency duty, you had damn well better turn to, or you will be fired even faster than if you fail the breathalyzer. We don't coddle folks, you don't have that luxury. And if you have made the voluntary, conscious decision to get drunk, you are letting your shipmates down should the poop hit the fan. It's a lot like the New England Patriot's mantra "do your job", and if you make a decision to get into a situation where you can't do your job, then you won't have that job.

Not sure you understood what I said about the fire teams. For a 24 hour period, two fire teams, all 12 members (6 to a team), are restricted to ship, even when off duty. So, they cannot go ashore if they have the duty. Similarly, as I've said, the senior officers at NCL are not allowed to have any alcohol, for the entire time they are signed on the ship, whether on duty or off duty, on the ship or off the ship. Those glasses at the lattitudes parties are ginger ale or seltzer water. When the crew go down for breathalyzing, they can blow a 0.03 and be good. Senior officers, if they blow a 0.01 are subject to immediate dismissal.

Those of us who have worked both cargo and passenger vessels say that the only difference is that on a passenger ship, "the cargo can talk back to you".

The reason the DPA is the "Designated Person Ashore" is that he has more resources than if he were onboard. It is also not a full time job, typically they also have another HR or environmental responsibility. If you think there is anyplace onboard a ship where you could have a "confidential meeting" with the DPA and not have 50% of the crew know about it within the hour, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Not sure what barrier to contact the DPA you are referring to. Every company posts an anonymous phone number to call if you have a concern that the DPA should address (if you haven't received adequate response going through your normal chain of command onboard, which is a first requirement), and there are anonymous email addresses that go directly to the DPA, and that strip off the sender's address. The DPA also reports directly to the CEO, no one else, with regards to concerns brought to him/her, again much like an Inspector General, reporting outside the corporate chain of command.

If you think there is anyplace onboard a ship where you could have a "confidential meeting" with the DPA and not have 50% of the crew know about it within the hour, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Tell me more about the bridge :D

Thank you again!